Jared Flores
Annotation 5: Addicted to Plastic
1.Title, director, and release year?
Addicted to Plastic, directed by Ian Connacher, released in 2007
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that there is too much plastic waste being dumped in the ocean and in landfills. The film shows how a great deal of plastic is produced in the U.S., and how, being non-bio-degradable, cannot easily decompose when discarded in the environment. The film shows how much plastic has built up in the ocean, and how there is no simple way to extract it. The film also shows how people in other countries use recycled plastic. There are many ways in which this high amount of plastic waste is shown to be a problem, particularly that it is harmful to wildlife and to human beings. Additionally, the film depicts several ways in which to combat this problem, such as biodegradable alternatives to plastic.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem the film draws out is in regards to environmental sustainability. Because of all the plastic waste produced annually, there are now at least 46,000 pieces of plastic in every square mile of ocean. Because the ocean is so large and expansive, there is no feasible way to extract this plastic. The pollution is so bad that there are now 10 times as many plastic bits in the ocean than there are organisms. Additionally, 75% of recycled plastic ends up in landfills, so even recycling plastic waste isn’t good for the environment. The plastic waste in inevitably consumed by lower organisms and ends up in the food chain.
Another sustainability problem covered in the movie is technological sustainability. According to the film, plastic originally started to be mass produced because it was cheap, malleable, and durable. This made it something of a wonder material that could be used in a wide array of products. It was especially ideal during WWII. Since it was so inexpensive, even the environmentally conscious community used it. The United States has a bad habit of overusing materials simply because they are convenient. The problem with abundant, inexpensive innovations is that they are made that way at the cost of the environment. The film advocates the idea that old innovations like plastic are too harmful to the environment to be ignored.
4.What parts of the film did you find persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling was the part depicting plastic as it travels through the food chain. When plastic is dumped in the ocean, it accumulates oily components. Fish then mistake the plastic for food, and consume it. Humans then catch the fish, and consume it themselves. Eating fish with plastic in their systems causes trace amounts of bisphenol-a to enter the bloodstream, which nearly every Americans has been shown to have. These trace amounts cause people to be more susceptible to cancer, abnormal hormone levels, and learning disabilities. This was compelling to me because I had never heard about this before, and it makes me nervous to eat fish knowing that this is the case.
Another part I found compelling was the part where people in India, China, and Kenya were being shown using recycled plastic. I had known for a while that recycling in the U.S. doesn’t do much good, so it was refreshing to see how plastic is being recycled in other countries. People in India were shown to collect plastic bags and rework them into purses. People in Kenya were shown to use recycled plastic to make jewelry and knick-knacks. It was pretty interesting to learn that some plastic waste from the U.S. is actually sold to other countries so they can reuse it.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The only part of the film that I was not convinced by was the part where the narrator was showing what daily life would be like without plastic. I felt that this part of the film was a little silly, and it almost threw off the more serious argument of the film. It just seemed unnecessary to include this segment. The film already demonstrated that we as a people have a reliance on plastic. There was no need to include in the movie a segment showing a guy brushing his teeth with a stick.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I would definitely like to find more information on the harmful effects of plastic in the human body. Based on what the film said, almost everyone has trace amounts of plastic in their bloodstream. I would like to read a full list of the toxic effects it has on the body, and ways to combat it. Additionally, I would like to read how many other countries deal with their plastic problem. The film itself only touched on a few countries. I would also like to learn if there are ways to treat fish and other food sources to remove to toxic plastic particles from them.
7.What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe that this film best addresses an audience that is concerned with the ocean. The film devoted a great deal of time to depicting how much plastic waste was being thrown into the ocean. The film also showed how concerned some people were, that they actually spent their time extracting bit of plastic from the ocean to discern the level of plastic content within the ocean. I believe this film will change the way those people think about plastic, as it not only shows the effects that plastic has on ocean life, but on people as well.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This is where the film really soars. The film suggests multiple points of action that can be taken. One suggestion is research about refining plastic into oil. After refining the plastic, a certain type of bacteria is able to consume the plastic and convert it into plastic again, this time a fresh, usable kind. Another thing that can be done is to use bioplastics instead of regular plastics. Bioplastics can be made from natural ingredients such as vegetables and chicken feathers, and best of all, it is biodegradable, so it poses little to no harm to the environment. Another solution is to cut down on plastic consumption by researching what products contain plastics and choosing to use alternatives to them.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
One thing that I think could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value is an explanation of how we can clean up the plastic waste that is currently plaguing the environment. After showing the slow process of extracting plastic from the ocean, the film offered little hope in terms of actually removing a good amount of plastic from the ocean. Though it offered alternatives to plastic and ways to cut down on plastic consumption, I believe it would have been beneficial for the film to include ways to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment, as opposed to just offering ways to reduce the amount of plastic going in to the environment.
Annotation 5: Addicted to Plastic
1. Title, director, and release year?
Addicted to Plastic, directed by Ian Connacher, released in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that there is too much plastic waste being dumped in the ocean and in landfills. The film shows how a great deal of plastic is produced in the U.S., and how, being non-bio-degradable, cannot easily decompose when discarded in the environment. The film shows how much plastic has built up in the ocean, and how there is no simple way to extract it. The film also shows how people in other countries use recycled plastic. There are many ways in which this high amount of plastic waste is shown to be a problem, particularly that it is harmful to wildlife and to human beings. Additionally, the film depicts several ways in which to combat this problem, such as biodegradable alternatives to plastic.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem the film draws out is in regards to environmental sustainability. Because of all the plastic waste produced annually, there are now at least 46,000 pieces of plastic in every square mile of ocean. Because the ocean is so large and expansive, there is no feasible way to extract this plastic. The pollution is so bad that there are now 10 times as many plastic bits in the ocean than there are organisms. Additionally, 75% of recycled plastic ends up in landfills, so even recycling plastic waste isn’t good for the environment. The plastic waste in inevitably consumed by lower organisms and ends up in the food chain.
Another sustainability problem covered in the movie is technological sustainability. According to the film, plastic originally started to be mass produced because it was cheap, malleable, and durable. This made it something of a wonder material that could be used in a wide array of products. It was especially ideal during WWII. Since it was so inexpensive, even the environmentally conscious community used it. The United States has a bad habit of overusing materials simply because they are convenient. The problem with abundant, inexpensive innovations is that they are made that way at the cost of the environment. The film advocates the idea that old innovations like plastic are too harmful to the environment to be ignored.
4. What parts of the film did you find persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling was the part depicting plastic as it travels through the food chain. When plastic is dumped in the ocean, it accumulates oily components. Fish then mistake the plastic for food, and consume it. Humans then catch the fish, and consume it themselves. Eating fish with plastic in their systems causes trace amounts of bisphenol-a to enter the bloodstream, which nearly every Americans has been shown to have. These trace amounts cause people to be more susceptible to cancer, abnormal hormone levels, and learning disabilities. This was compelling to me because I had never heard about this before, and it makes me nervous to eat fish knowing that this is the case.
Another part I found compelling was the part where people in India, China, and Kenya were being shown using recycled plastic. I had known for a while that recycling in the U.S. doesn’t do much good, so it was refreshing to see how plastic is being recycled in other countries. People in India were shown to collect plastic bags and rework them into purses. People in Kenya were shown to use recycled plastic to make jewelry and knick-knacks. It was pretty interesting to learn that some plastic waste from the U.S. is actually sold to other countries so they can reuse it.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The only part of the film that I was not convinced by was the part where the narrator was showing what daily life would be like without plastic. I felt that this part of the film was a little silly, and it almost threw off the more serious argument of the film. It just seemed unnecessary to include this segment. The film already demonstrated that we as a people have a reliance on plastic. There was no need to include in the movie a segment showing a guy brushing his teeth with a stick.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I would definitely like to find more information on the harmful effects of plastic in the human body. Based on what the film said, almost everyone has trace amounts of plastic in their bloodstream. I would like to read a full list of the toxic effects it has on the body, and ways to combat it. Additionally, I would like to read how many other countries deal with their plastic problem. The film itself only touched on a few countries. I would also like to learn if there are ways to treat fish and other food sources to remove to toxic plastic particles from them.
7. What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe that this film best addresses an audience that is concerned with the ocean. The film devoted a great deal of time to depicting how much plastic waste was being thrown into the ocean. The film also showed how concerned some people were, that they actually spent their time extracting bit of plastic from the ocean to discern the level of plastic content within the ocean. I believe this film will change the way those people think about plastic, as it not only shows the effects that plastic has on ocean life, but on people as well.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This is where the film really soars. The film suggests multiple points of action that can be taken. One suggestion is research about refining plastic into oil. After refining the plastic, a certain type of bacteria is able to consume the plastic and convert it into plastic again, this time a fresh, usable kind. Another thing that can be done is to use bioplastics instead of regular plastics. Bioplastics can be made from natural ingredients such as vegetables and chicken feathers, and best of all, it is biodegradable, so it poses little to no harm to the environment. Another solution is to cut down on plastic consumption by researching what products contain plastics and choosing to use alternatives to them.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
One thing that I think could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value is an explanation of how we can clean up the plastic waste that is currently plaguing the environment. After showing the slow process of extracting plastic from the ocean, the film offered little hope in terms of actually removing a good amount of plastic from the ocean. Though it offered alternatives to plastic and ways to cut down on plastic consumption, I believe it would have been beneficial for the film to include ways to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment, as opposed to just offering ways to reduce the amount of plastic going in to the environment.